Shenanigans at the SWPP

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dave Routledge said:
That is a GROSS misrepresentation of the forum and its members. Another example of hyperbole and character assassination; with great respect Simon, I think you should withdraw that remark.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, I stand by my comment. When one of the most active sections of the forum is the rather pointless 'virtual pub' that is full of one-line postings, movie quizzes, virtual drinking and superfluous emoticons, it is hard to see how access to the forum is useful. Forgive me for thinking that it was supposed to be a website for photographers, not for wannabe Licensed Victuallers and pretend alcoholics.

It is interesting to see that once again Dave you've failed to actually answer the question I posed: why are you baffled that someone should be interested in the inaccuracies and flaws of the monthly competition?

Simon
 
What started as a genuine crit by Alison has been turned into a malicious witchunt by a few egomainiacs who I'm certain the SWWP are mightily relieved to be rid of.
If I had a successful business that was being dictated to in the tone of a few of the posters on here, I'd gladly give them their money back + a big cream bun.

This whole post now smacks of very sour grapes that the SWWP wasn't being run the way a few ex members wanted it. Tough!

Apart from idle threats - 'legal advice' - 'protest march' and a few sycophants who insist on bringing this pathetic topic back to page one, it has only served to highlight how desperate some are to get their own back on anyone not cowing to their bully boy tactics.
You left - Get over it!
 
Have been dipping in and out of this forum for a while now. It saddens me to see how nasty people can be to one another. What's worse is how I'm reminded of playground bickering.

I'm surprised the mods (who do a fine job 99% of the time) have let this one ride.

Grow up fellas. Agree to disagree and move on. Then the topic can get back to the original point.

:crying:
 
Dave if you had read my folow up posting you will see that I did comment that it was a feeling and that the actual figures did not match.

Mercedes when you have finished with your rant and are big enough to reveal your real identity and why you are so protective of the SWPP I will answer it.

Dave's real reason for being here has just been made abundantly clear from him - he seems to think he is some Knight on the great white charger of the SWPP (which probably would make a good image) out to right the wrongs that people are making against his beloved Taffia.

There are real problems within the SWPP, such as;

Rules are not being applied in the same manner to all members with certain individuals being given distinct advantages.

The SWPP has no judges with expertise in many of the areas that they have organisations - the judging is only done by a couple of people who claim to have high level qualifications - some of whom it is a matter of record actually do.

There are a number of photographers that have had late night threatening and abusive phonecalls from the SEO Phil Jones

Other issues such as the promise of the facilities for distinct groups of photography may be slowly coming in to being - due to the pressure of members / ex-members.

The 3 month renewal and court action if you do not pay also appears to have been addressed in some manner or other - again due to pressure from ex-members i.e. court

None of this can be disputed and there are more than enough photographers that would be prepared to go to court to swear to this.

There are photographers who have joined the SWPP and found it to be beneficial for them, it did not happen for me.

It has taken a lot of forum activity and a lot of thread posting to get the SWPP to concede to my demand of removing my details, which for me was good reason to see this thread to continue to be active.

When Phil Jones started his attacks on me, he started a war which reminds me of an old saying;

Arguing with a Para is like wrestling with a pig in mud, they both get dirty but one of them enjoys it - well I am enjoying it, I bet Phil won't say the same.

I do not know if this thread has reached a conclusion, so I will sit back and observe.

Mike
 
By the way , before we offend anyone in the SWWP, we were talking about the SWPP.;)

Whatever the SWWP is.

The very fact the Mods on here have been so very lenient is likely an indication that they are allowing people on both sides of this discussion some freedom to express their views.

We have enough problems with the Police restricting freedom as photographers, without it taking place on what is a discussion forum.

That said , it is worth rememebering that this section of TP is open for all to see, including non photo orientated members of the public.

Sermon over.
 
MARK AMIES said:
By the way , before we offend anyone in the SWWP, we were talking about the SWPP.;)

Whatever the SWWP is.

The very fact the Mods on here have been so very lenient is likely an indication that they are allowing people on both sides of this discussion some freedom to express their views.

We have enough problems with the Police restricting freedom as photographers, without it taking place on waht is a discussion forum.

That said , it is worth rememebering that this section of TP is open for all to see, including non photo orientated members of the public.

Sermon over.
Click to expand...

Freedom of speech is one thing - nastiness is another and degrades any arguments put forward.
 
So far the majority of this thread has brought up additional issues with the SWPP as well as keeping those who chose to leave informed, should the SWPP should it wish to amend its approach to business and how the operation is run.

It has been a breath of fresh air to talk on a forum with honest opinions without having back door emails and such issuing threats and threads being deleted because the Boss does not like anyone questioning them.

Honest truth, upon leaving the SWPP, I had a mass of communication pro supportive and airing their shared concerns but, in a generalisation of their own terms; are afraid to voice the opinion for being striked upon.

And many of those are on here, most never commenting but nether the less keeping me and several others well informed on the actions from within.

And I am assured by most of these that following the actions of the SWPP and the service provided that they will not be renewing their subscription.
Some have decided they do gain enough benefit to warrant renewing and I like many others here respect that decision.

All we asked for was changes for the better,
what we received was something else.

Also, Mercedes
To put your statement into context of why this thread exists;

"If I had a successful business that was being dictated to in the tone of a few of the posters on here, I'd gladly give them their money back + a big cream bun"
Click to expand...

In Phils own words he does not issue refunds, I would have been happy with a cream bun but that is to much to ask for

This whole post now smacks of very sour grapes that the SWWP wasn't being run the way a few ex members wanted it. Tough!
Click to expand...

We have frequently stated that we wanted to help improve the way things operated so that it truly benefited photographers by putting in opinions, which to some was met with verbal abuse.

Apart from idle threats - 'legal advice' - 'protest march' and a few sycophants who insist on bringing this pathetic topic back to page one, it has only served to highlight how desperate some are to get their own back on anyone not cowing to their bully boy tactics.
Click to expand...

The problems are ongoing, so is the discussion, and so long as there is some factor to discuss who are you to say a thread should not present itself on the first page?

Also please take this post as an example of the approach we are trying to take when in discussion on this thread?

Your opinion is welcome but please keep the level of personal attacks at the contributors to a minimum :muted:
 
Wildsnaps said:
On the contrary, I stand by my comment. When one of the most active sections of the forum is the rather pointless 'virtual pub' that is full of one-line postings, movie quizzes, virtual drinking and superfluous emoticons, it is hard to see how access to the forum is useful. Forgive me for thinking that it was supposed to be a website for photographers, not for wannabe Licensed Victuallers and pretend alcoholics.

It is interesting to see that once again Dave you've failed to actually answer the question I posed: why are you baffled that someone should be interested in the inaccuracies and flaws of the monthly competition?

Simon
Click to expand...

Hi Simon. I am baffled because I don't see it as that important, and if you look hard enough you will always find fault; people make mistakes. What about all the images that are judged correctly? Why not praise the fact that the judges give up their free time each month so that the competition can run?

What is wrong with having a social section of the forum? There is one here on TP

The forum members that I have knowledge of are professional, hardworking, honest, friendly people, who are always willing to help anyone who asks.

For you to stand by your sweeping description of them as "sub-standard" and "self-important" is not right and without credit.


God bless
Dave
 
Dave Routledge said:
Hi Simon. I am baffled because I don't see it as that important, and if you look hard enough you will always find fault; people make mistakes. What about all the images that are judged correctly? Why not praise the fact that the judges give up their free time each month so that the competition can run?
Click to expand...

So, I should praise the judges for sometimes getting things right? Well done judges on only being incompetent some of the time:clap:

I also noticed that you have decided to quote me incorrectly too. I never described the members as "sub-standard", I described the forum as such. It appears that you are as guilty as "hyperbole" and "character assassination" as those you criticise.

Can you not understand how it is harmful to a photographer's business when a 'professional body' to which they belong cannot differentiate between wild and domesticated animals?

I think that you are also deliberately missing the point here: it is not the monthly competition that I have problems with - it is the way in which the management of the SWPP have failed to acknowledge or address the issues surrounding the competition. Prior to the judging of the January round, I pointed out to Mr Jones that there were clearly captive and domesticated animals in contention, despite the fact that they contravened the rules. What did the management do? What they usually do: put their heads in the sand and ignore the issue!

Simon
 
Hi Simon

I did not misquote you, those were your phrases.

To quote you more fully, you described the forum as a

"sub-standard camera club forum populated by people full of their own self-importance"

How criticisng a forum does not implicate its members I do not know, but apologies if I misunderstood.


God bless
Dave

God bless
Dave
 
benl said:
I have to agree with others that this thread has degenerated from a useful commentary on the value or otherwise of SWPP membership into rather pointless to-ing and fro-ing on asides.
Click to expand...

I keep seeing either David or Simons names popping up, have to agree its getting out of hand.
How I see it is best described as one retaliating while the other fans the flames, I will leave you to decide which is doing the fanning.

All I can ask is Simon, choose to ignore David as it is only ill influencing the purpose of the thread,
I can see your trying to drum a point home with purpose but it is falling on deaf ears and there is no doubt that the SWPP would enjoy seeing it fall apart and using any confrontation it to push home their fiction which, looking at one of the above posts may be working :shake:
 
if anyone wants to complain about any posts, please report them.

We have left this thread to run so that the people that the complaints are being made about have right to reply, that is only fair. Some folk clearly have some issues but I would ask that it remains civil, polite and grounded purelyi in facts.

thanks
 
I’ve been reading this with a great deal of confusion at times and here’s why.

I’m an NVQ Assessor / Tutor (not photographic related but computer related), I had to pass exams in the field of the subject I was teaching/assessing, every portfolio of work I assessed was then sent to a main centre where portfolios were picked at random by the Examination Board Assessor. If a mistake was spotted either in students work or my assessment of it, then more portfolios would be examined to ascertain if I had just missed something or I was not following the guidelines on assessing. If I was found to be at error then all the portfolios would be rejected and my Assessor status would be at risk with the prospect of losing my qualification to teach and assess.

To get these qualifications I was assessed as well, my ability to assess students was studied by an Examination Board Assessor. This process was vigorous and documented, the marking was simple, you were either competent or non-competent to do the task, there was no middle ground as in ‘well you made a few errors, but we will let it pass been as you know what to do next time’. You did just one thing wrong or missed something then that was it you had to re-sit. Your ability to assess a student as an individual as well as their portfolios was assessed, if they felt you didn’t communicate correctly with the student you failed therefore re-sit.

Now if I was asked to assess another subject, still within computing, I would be deemed as non-competent. It was not the subject I was assessed on therefore anything I assessed in that other subject would be rejected. Every assessor has a number assigned to them and every document you produce as an assessor can be traced back to you. If you try and assess a subject that you have not been assessed in you risk losing your certification / accreditation.

So what has this got to do with what is going on here? Well I read about the competitions and think what the hell is going on!!!! If I was allowed to assess other computing subjects I wouldn’t know what the marking/assessing criteria were I could look at something and think ‘that’s ok’ when it is actually wrong. Someone could pass off any old junk and as long as it looked correct what would I have known. The examination board only allowed assessors to teach and assess in the field of their expertise and what there certification / accreditation is in. Anything else you simply do not touch because to their eyes you were non-competent in that specific subject. Surly a photographic body should apply the same criteria to their competitions? All because you have qualifications in one branch it does not mean you’re an expert in all branches, that to me makes a mockery of any qualification system. If you want to hold a competition in a specific field then you have someone qualified/experienced in that field to judge it or don’t hold the competition in that field at all.

David

Ps I apologise if this post seems to ramble a bit, but today I was I hospital under a general anaesthetic. After care notes ‘do not drive, drink alcohol or sign any legal documents for 24 hr’ maybe they should also and form posts to that list :puke:
 
Actually David, its was very enlightening, there's a new NVQ for the industry I work in, and the people assessing me, had an assessor come in to asses them and question me to make sure they job was being done right.

Truth be told that man at the top dident have a f"""""""" clue and I could have told him anything and he would have to deem it correct unless told otherwise (having never worked in the industry), but what's the point in that?? there would be no benafit to anyone through it.

ANYWAY!
I have to say you have outlined the problem beautifully.

The assessments are often done by people with ill or no knowledge of the subject, the fact that they have given up their time is no excuse to to allow them to judge on a subject they have no real knowledge of.

So thank you David A
 
David_A said:
So what has this got to do with what is going on here? Well I read about the competitions and think what the hell is going on!!!! If I was allowed to assess other computing subjects I wouldn’t know what the marking/assessing criteria were I could look at something and think ‘that’s ok’ when it is actually wrong. Someone could pass off any old junk and as long as it looked correct what would I have known. The examination board only allowed assessors to teach and assess in the field of their expertise and what there certification / accreditation is in. Anything else you simply do not touch because to their eyes you were non-competent in that specific subject. Surly a photographic body should apply the same criteria to their competitions? All because you have qualifications in one branch it does not mean you’re an expert in all branches, that to me makes a mockery of any qualification system. If you want to hold a competition in a specific field then you have someone qualified/experienced in that field to judge it or don’t hold the competition in that field at all.

David
:puke:
Click to expand...

Hi David

I take your point about examinations, but we are talking here about an internal monthly photograph competition of one organisation.



There are core elements that apply to all photography, a full grasp of which I believe entitles someone who has years of experience to judge a wide range of photographs. eg, tonality, lighting control, composition etc.

if you are going to say that no one can judge a category unless s/he is an expert in that category of photography, then who would be qualified to judge the open category?

The monthly competition is not a qualification system, it is a photography compettion, judged by experienced, qualified judges who know what constitutes a good image.

Rather than say if you don't have an expert in each category judging that category (a montly logistical difficulty btw) then don't hold the competition. I would argue:

If you are not happy with the terms and conditions of the competition, don't enter it. And it may be that form time to time judges are in breach of the guidelines and make clear mistakes such as admitting shots of animals in a zoo into the wildlife section, but they are only human, so lets be generous and allow them that.




God bless
Dave
 
Dave Routledge said:
If you are not happy with the terms and conditions of the competition, don't enter it. And it may be that form time to time judges are in breach of the guidelines and make clear mistakes such as admitting shots of animals in a zoo into the wildlife section, but they are only human, so lets be generous and allow them that.
Click to expand...

Fair point. Perhaps we should also allow the occasional poorly exposed, poorly composed and poorly executed shot in too? After all, I am sure that the photographer only made a mistake and that normally their work is top-notch.

You may feel that the SWPP's monthly competition isn' that important in the grand scheme of things, but since the 'winning' images are put forward for a final judging at the Convention, I would argue that it is more important than you give it credit. They winners of the overall title then use this in their marketing campaigns.

I can just imagine how proud the poor soul that was declared SINWP wildlife photographer of the year must be when he shows people what he was competing against. He must take an immense amount of pride at beating photos of cows and caged animals.

Dave, I am sure that you are also of the opinion that the shot of the wolf leaping a gate that won and was subsequently disqualified from the BBC Wildlife Photographer of the Year for being a fake, should kept its title?

Simon
 
Dave Routledge said:
The monthly competition is not a qualification system, it is a photography compettion, judged by experienced, qualified judges who know what constitutes a good image.
Click to expand...

I was also under the impression that it was pretty much the same people who judge the monthly competitions that also judge the qualification submissions? If that is the case, then your argument is somewhat flawed.:wacky:

Simon
 
Wildsnaps said:
I can just imagine how proud the poor soul that was declared SINWP wildlife photographer of the year must be when he shows people what he was competing against. He must take an immense amount of pride at beating photos of cows and caged animals.

Dave, I am sure that you are also of the opinion that the shot of the wolf leaping a gate that won and was subsequently disqualified from the BBC Wildlife Photographer of the Year for being a fake, should kept its title?

Simon
Click to expand...

Hi Simon

The winner of the wildlife photographer of the year holds several fellowships, including the MPA and BIPP, and according to his website is proud of his award calling the competition a "prestigious" one

No I do not think the photographer in the BBC competition should keep his title.

God bless
Dave
 
Dave Routledge said:
Hi David

I take your point about examinations, but we are talking here about an internal monthly photograph competition of one organisation.



There are core elements that apply to all photography, a full grasp of which I believe entitles someone who has years of experience to judge a wide range of photographs. eg, tonality, lighting control, composition etc.

if you are going to say that no one can judge a category unless s/he is an expert in that category of photography, then who would be qualified to judge the open category?

The monthly competition is not a qualification system, it is a photography compettion, judged by experienced, qualified judges who know what constitutes a good image.

Rather than say if you don't have an expert in each category judging that category (a montly logistical difficulty btw) then don't hold the competition. I would argue:

If you are not happy with the terms and conditions of the competition, don't enter it. And it may be that form time to time judges are in breach of the guidelines and make clear mistakes such as admitting shots of animals in a zoo into the wildlife section, but they are only human, so lets be generous and allow them that.




God bless
Dave
Click to expand...

I'm sorry Dave but personally I wouldn't want say my wedding photos judged by a wildlife photographer who has maybe never even done a wedding in his/her life, theres a lot more to an image than just lighting and composition, theres posing effects and all other kinds of things only another wedding photographer might understand (no doubt same with wildlife) It makes sense to have someone experienced in the subject being judged.
Wayne
 
mike weeks said:
...making against his beloved Taffia...
Click to expand...

I've been reading this thread for a while and I'm starting to get RSI from the amount of head-shaking I seem to be doing.

Mike, a lot of your comments make for interesting reading but I'll ask you to do me one favour out of respect... Will you please refrain from referring to the Welsh as the 'Taffia'. It's insulting and uncalled for (and I'm an Englishman by the way)! ;)

I'm a fairly new member of the SWPP and with all the angst and bad comments being spread about, I'm beginning to wonder whether I joined a professional body or an outfit with a significant number of four year olds with decent camera gear!

I'll stake my colours to the mast here and state that I've learnt a lot from the members in the SWPP and I hope to continue to do so... I have no allegiance to either side of this argument and simply prefer to read and learn. I'm primarily a landscape photographer with an interest in portraiture so a lot of what's been said here is irrelevant to me anyway.

Regards,
Si
 
swanseamale47 said:
I'm sorry Dave but personally I wouldn't want say my wedding photos judged by a wildlife photographer who has maybe never even done a wedding in his/her life, theres a lot more to an image than just lighting and composition, theres posing effects and all other kinds of things only another wedding photographer might understand (no doubt same with wildlife) It makes sense to have someone experienced in the subject being judged.
Wayne
Click to expand...

Hi Wayne

I agree it is preferable, and I am guessing that in the majority of cases it is so, but I would be more than happy for a competent wildlife photographer to judge whether my portrait shot is below, or above competition standard; or worthy of going forward to the annual competition.

It would surely be impractical to have each category judged by a specialsit in that area each month.


I understand that most judges have experience in "judging" which covers photographs outside their field.

It would be interesting to hear from any judges what the criteria is for being a judge.


God bless
Dave
 
Dave Routledge said:
It would surely be impractical to have each category judged by a specialsit in that area each month.
Click to expand...


It may well be impractical to have each category judged by a specialist. Having said that, surely the non-specialist judge should be briefed as to the rules of the competition?

SWPP said:
Photographs taken of animals in their natural habitat, not in zoos or safari parks. Action shots and images that show animal behaviour in an interesting and
dynamic way will usually do better than images of a static subject. Remember the rarity of your subject or how long you had to sit in a hide to get an image, are usually NOT the prime concern of the judges
Click to expand...

Assuming that they were briefed correctly, only a complete numpty would allow photos of cows, sheep and caged animals through. I am not arguing about the quality of the photos, I am arguing about their eligibility into the category and the SWPP's complete incompetence in dealing with the situation.

Part of the problem lays with the photographers who submit the images into to the incorrect categories. By the rules of the competition they are cheating - a process which appears to be condoned by the management, since they are not disqualifying the photographs.

How can you explain your double standards whereby you claim that the organisers of the BBC Wildlife competition were correct in disqualifying the wolf shot, yet you are happy to let the SWPP's infringements of their own rules stand?

Simon

Simon
 
Simon,

I dont refer to the Welsh as the Taffia, I only refer to a family that lives in Rhyl, by the name of Jones, that use tactics that the Mafia would be proud of, as the Taffia.

Dave,

there are no criteria for being a judge, you either get asked or you volunteer. It is normally accepted practice to only take those that have demonstrated a mastery of the skills that they will be assessing - whereas a Wedding or Portrait photographer will normally have control over their subjects it is generally understood that a wildlife photographer has to have an understanding of behaviour to achieve the desired reult or that a forensic photgrapher will need to record and document in a manner that fits the criminal justice system.

All photographers need an understanding of light and composition so although a judge may themselves be a fantastic portrait photographer it does not take the brains of an arch-bishop to understand that they most likely will not have an in-depth undertsanding of the skills and techniques required to be a good architectural or wildlife photographer.

There are always criteria given to judges as to what should be allowed and what not so whilst it may not be easy to spot whether some animals are in a man made enivronment i.e. zoo or wildlife park, or if they are in the wild it is not only reasonable but absolutely plain that a judge should recognise that a cow is not wildlife. Those sort of images should be disqualified by the organisers before putting them in front of the judges i.e. a fundamental cock-up by the Jones family.

The Jones family set up the individual societies at a cost of £99 per year and there are over 300 members listed for events as an example i.e. £30,000 income so why they can not provide a judge each month who specialises in that type of photography is beyond me - they certainly are not using the money for anything else. A cynic might say that they have done this to fund their wedding society.

Mike
 
Wildsnaps said:
Part of the problem lays with the photographers who submit the images into to the incorrect categories. By the rules of the competition they are cheating - a process which appears to be condoned by the management, since they are not disqualifying the photographs.

How can you explain your double standards whereby you claim that the organisers of the BBC Wildlife competition were correct in disqualifying the wolf shot, yet you are happy to let the SWPP's infringements of their own rules stand?

Simon

Simon
Click to expand...

Hi Simon

I think you are being overly harsh. I am sure that people who submit to the wrong category are not attempting to cheat, but do so in error.

I have no double standards, I think an image of a caged animal should be disqualified and I thought I did say they had made a mistake.

Simon I am begining to feel our exchanges are becoming a little pedantic and perhaps it would be better if we backed off, I am tired of having to explain every comment I make and I feel like I am being interrogated.

I apologise if I my attitude has been in any way wrong

I am also sure we are boring the pants off everyone else.

God bless
Dave

God bless
Dave
 
I think I may have found a cure for insomnia. Any patent lawyers in the house?

John


John
 
mike weeks said:
Dave,

as it is you and you are the personal servant of the Taffia I am sure that they will let you enter it in multiple categories and if you dont win this month you can enter it again next month, after all what has integrity got to do with it? You must be tired out running backwards and forwards to Rhyl.


Mike
Click to expand...

Hi Mike

I too wish you would desist in referring to The Jones family in this manner.

You are also misrepresenting me and I would ask that you please STOP it.

I have NEVER met Phil Jones and have NEVER spoken to him. I do NOT represent the Jones family and I am NOT their slave and I have not been to Rhyl since I was about 8 years old.

I am merely a very satisfied member of the SWPP and I have no hesitation in recommending that people join, as I believe it WILL be of benefit to you.

All I ask for is fairness and balance Mike; there IS another side to the story.

I would also like to say that I do not wish to create any emnity, we are all part of the same profession and I truly wish you every success Mike.


God bless
Dave
 
Oh No Dave, you have just opened the door for another 5 pages of this thread
to be devoted to Chelsea Football Club!!

:LOL:
 
MARK AMIES said:
Oh No Dave, you have just opened the door for another 5 pages of this thread
to be devoted to Chelsea Football Club!!

:LOL:
Click to expand...

For goodness sake DO NOT mention John Terry else we'll be here forever with the JT jokes.

Bugger, I just mentioned him!
 
It's not Terry's , it's................................

( Chocolate ad - can't think of anything funny - someone else can do it.)
 
MARK AMIES said:
It's not Terry's , it's................................

( Chocolate ad - can't think of anything funny - someone else can do it.)
Click to expand...

Cadburys recently released a chocolate willy for Valentines day. Upon tasting it, Wayne Bridges ex missus said she didn't like Cadburys, she preferred Terrys :eek:)

Gawd, now watch the flood gates open. I apologise to everyone, but couldn't resist it :)
 
Yup, that's done it now Mark.:clap:

Oh dear...................:bonk:
 
MarkyP said:
Cadburys recently released a chocolate willy for Valentines day. Upon tasting it, Wayne Bridges ex missus said she didn't like Cadburys, she preferred Terrys :eek:)

Gawd, now watch the flood gates open. I apologise to everyone, but couldn't resist it :)
Click to expand...


Hi Mark, hope all is well

Have you no self-control?;)


God bless
Dave
 
Any thread on TP that tips over 1000 posts gets closed and a "Part 2" thread started. So I'm now closing this one (not going to split hairs over 3 posts :p).

However, there will be no Part 2 as there is really nothing more to be said here that can't be found in the previous 996 posts.

[Vinny Jones Voice] It's been emotional........ [/Vinny Jones Voice]
 
Aaaaaaaaameeeeeeeeeeeeeeen. Can I get up now, my knees are killing me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top